People are making a big deal about this and it is getting a little silly at this point (especially since the writer even said he got to like the character). I'm seeing people take on just another form of social justice identitarian left, myself included - which I hate myself for lol (I hesitate to use the overused cringeworthy term "SJW" although I sort have just did myself :/)
But I do have one point which I haven't quite seen touched on. I suppose I just find it shallow that the writer seemed at least initially to be 100% focused on the image of the character. I'm not just talking about race, but about the male/gruff as well. To me at least, like 80% of the depth and diversity of a character comes from the actions, and well, "character" of said protagonist.
In order words, I'd rather play a series of games that all featured:
the same exact looking dudes of the exact same race dressed the exact same but had more depth to their character, exhibitted completely different personalities, made completely different decisions, had completely different dialect, emotions, etc..
Vs:
a bunch of characters that represented every possible race under the sun and had completely different wardrobes, hairstyles, etc - yet they had no depth or nothing interesting about them, all spoke and acted the same way, made the same types of decisions, had the same types of emotions, etc.
Obviously visual appearance/dress/general makeup of a character does mean something, sure. After all, it's what you're going to be staring at throughout most of your game. But I guess it just doesn't mean as much to me as to many, vs personality traits.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden
